14:00:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwbp
14:00:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwbp-irc
14:00:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:00:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwbp
14:00:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
14:00:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:00:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
14:00:14 <trackbot> Date: 01 June 2016
14:00:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
14:00:28 <Linda> present+ Linda
14:00:43 <frans> present+ frans
14:00:49 <Linda> regrets+ Payam, Jeremy
14:00:56 <frans> Only Dutch people on webex
14:01:08 <Linda> Ed, Bill, will you join the webex?
14:01:18 <eparsons> Just switching meetings
14:01:57 <ByronCinNZ_> ByronCinNZ_ has joined #sdwbp
14:02:13 <ByronCinNZ_> present+ ByronCinNZ
14:02:37 <joshli> joshli has joined #sdwbp
14:03:04 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
14:03:45 <roba> roba has joined #sdwbp
14:04:13 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdwbp
14:04:16 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdwbp
14:04:38 <joshli> present+ joshli
14:05:19 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
14:05:35 <roba> present+ roba
14:05:48 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
14:06:13 <Linda> present
14:06:16 <Linda> present?
14:07:21 <billroberts> scribe: billroberts
14:07:37 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdwbp
14:07:58 <Linda> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-sdwbp-minutes
14:08:01 <billroberts> Proposed: approve minutes of last meeting
14:08:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
14:08:05 <Linda> +1
14:08:10 <billroberts> 0 - wasn't there
14:08:18 <eparsons> 0 sorry
14:08:34 <joshli> +1
14:08:37 <MattPerry> 0 - not there
14:08:42 <frans> +0 (but they look fine)
14:08:43 <ByronCinNZ_> +1
14:08:54 <billroberts> Resolved: minutes approved
14:09:01 <Linda> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
14:09:25 <billroberts> Resolution: minutes approved
14:09:35 <Linda> Progress of BP Narrative 2
14:09:42 <billroberts> Topic: Progress of BP Narrative 2
14:09:50 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
14:09:51 <Linda> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2
14:11:14 <billroberts> BartvanLeeuwen: Nicky and Bart have been working further on it.  Should be possible to align the work of the Dutch working group and this group
14:11:32 <billroberts> Linda: would be useful to get feedback from the Dutch group on the narrative
14:11:56 <billroberts> BartvanLeeuwen: the Dutch group would like to produce some guidance.  For this group, would be good to show that external people have used it
14:12:32 <billroberts> Linda: Bart to ask Nicky to share feedback via the mailing list
14:12:36 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdwbp
14:12:43 <billroberts> or by editing the wiki page
14:13:12 <billroberts> Linda: has edited the language to reduce the amount of jargon
14:14:13 <Linda> convert a coverage to a Feature dataset using the ‘typical’ Web environment of a javascript engine
14:14:23 <billroberts> Linda: has edited item (3). Question to working group on that particular sentence
14:14:35 <eparsons> q+
14:15:00 <Linda> ack BartvanLeeuwen
14:15:14 <billroberts> BartvanLeeuwen: this might be to do with OpenLayers - taking feature data and putting it on a map
14:15:18 <joshli> was the idea to do the conversion with a javascript engine or access a processing API?
14:15:24 <billroberts> ...but that might not be what Jeremy meant when he wrote it
14:15:46 <billroberts> Linda: thinks he meant to process coverage data and detect features
14:16:10 <Linda> ack eparsons
14:16:18 <ClausStadler> present+ ClausStadler
14:16:36 <billroberts> eparsons: questioned Jeremy on this point as this seemed not something that a web developer would do directly
14:16:53 <joshli> q+
14:17:04 <frans> q+
14:17:05 <billroberts> ...perhaps the details don't matter, other than the high level point that the developer does something to achieve a purpose. We don't need to be specific about how
14:17:10 <Linda> ack joshli
14:17:39 <billroberts> joshli: 3 pieces to this.  (1) Processing can be accessed via a javascript library (though perhaps more liekly to be accessing an API).
14:17:59 <billroberts> ...(2) common task to take an image or raster and have someone draw features on it, eg via crowdsourcing
14:18:08 <frans> q-
14:18:22 <billroberts> ...(3) corollary is to be able to link the derived feature to the source raster data
14:18:44 <Linda> q?
14:19:32 <Linda> billroberts: made some edits in section 5, happy to take feedback
14:21:10 <Linda> ... described minimum stuff to do and more advanced stuff census data publishers might do, including data cube stuff
14:22:29 <Linda> .. what's the take on including examples, I included one from the scottisch govt statistics.
14:23:01 <billroberts> Linda: in favour of including examples
14:23:01 <eparsons> +1 for examples
14:23:04 <frans> We could look at what Eurostat provides too
14:23:26 <Linda> ... happy to add more examples
14:24:06 <billroberts> Linda: welcomes input from others on the narrative - editors can't do it all themselves
14:24:23 <billroberts> eparsons: has worked on item 6 (evacuation plan)
14:24:48 <billroberts> ...importance of human readable as well as machine readable presentation of data
14:25:36 <roba> ed - so if some people will be humans.. what are the other peple?
14:25:39 <billroberts> Linda: has talked to Payam this week and he intends to help Josh on topics 7 and 8.
14:26:08 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
14:26:09 <eparsons> roba how machine overlords
14:26:25 <Linda> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/An_agreed_spatial_ontology
14:26:25 <billroberts> Topic: spatial ontology
14:26:54 <joshli> q+
14:27:07 <billroberts> Linda: there has been discussion on an agreed spatial ontology.  Should it be a new one, or should it be improvements to an existing one, eg Geosparqk
14:27:10 <Linda> ack joshli
14:27:30 <billroberts> joshli: presents thoughts on the spatial ontology.
14:27:42 <AndreaPerego> s/Geosparqk/GeoSPARQL/
14:27:44 <billroberts> joshli: so far we have been focusing on how to do geometry
14:28:14 <billroberts> ...looking at updating the GeoSPARQL approach to feature geometry
14:28:50 <billroberts> ... the issues are (1) there should be some means to use and reuse multiple geometries.  There are very simple spatial ontologies that say feature = geometry = encoding, but there are many use cases that require these to be separated
14:29:09 <billroberts> ...geometry should be a first class object so that attributes of it can be captured
14:29:21 <billroberts> ...so the geometry has to be disjoint from the feature
14:29:30 <AndreaPerego> s/scottisch govt/Scottish govt/
14:29:38 <billroberts> ...and the feature should be disjoint from the spatial object
14:30:00 <billroberts> ... a type of spatial object would be a geometrical object
14:30:23 <billroberts> ...which would enable topological relationships without having to talk about coordinates
14:31:28 <billroberts> joshli (continued): we also want to make it very simple for eg web developers to add information to a spatial object, eg simply lat,long coordinates
14:31:45 <billroberts> ...want to find a way to be rigorous when we want to and simple when we want to
14:32:16 <billroberts> ...It's not yet clear how to do that and which mechanisms would be best.  SHACL?
14:32:33 <billroberts> ...in GeoRSS 2005, we just stated equivalence of different forms
14:33:09 <billroberts> ...One additional aspect is that there should be different serialisations of coordinate positions for a geometry
14:33:19 <eparsons> q+
14:34:04 <billroberts> ...Given a geometry with particular resolution and coordinate system, we want to use the GeoSPARQL property as a particular serialisation, eg asWKT, asGeoJSON, asGML.  Can assert that they are mathematically the same but expressed in different formats
14:34:19 <frans> q+
14:34:20 <billroberts> ...that's another issue to resolve.  [End of Josh's overview]
14:34:21 <Linda> ack eparsons
14:35:23 <billroberts> eparsons: agrees with Josh's thoughtful approach.  We should look at this starting from a simple approach.  This is spatial data **on the web** and many use cases are simple
14:35:50 <billroberts> ...There are also common use cases about spatial information that may have no defined geometry.  We should include that in our thinking
14:36:05 <billroberts> ...Someone wants to talk about London but doesn't need to define the geometry of it
14:36:41 <billroberts> Joshli: Matt Perry has been thinking about this.  eg you might want to talk about London as a two dimensional region and say that something else is inside it, without specifying details
14:37:01 <MattPerry> q+
14:37:07 <billroberts> eparsons: 'London is in England', 'England is in Europe' etc are useful pieces of information
14:37:11 <frans> q-
14:37:32 <Linda> ack MattPerry
14:37:40 <frans> q+
14:37:40 <billroberts> joshli: those are assertions about the spatial nature of those things, even if not talking about geometry explicitly
14:38:12 <billroberts> MattPerry: been looking for a simple approach to this: making assertions about a feature rather than adding new classes to the hierarchy
14:38:29 <roba> q+
14:38:38 <billroberts> ...it may well make sense to add Spatial Object as a new class, but we need to eb careful not to break what we already have
14:38:38 <Linda> ack frans
14:39:00 <billroberts> frans: Simplicity should be paramount in this context
14:39:23 <billroberts> ...if we can put in good foundations for the basics of geometry that would be a step towards simplification
14:39:53 <billroberts> ...the foundation (which in itself might not be simple) can hopefully build bridges between different representations on the web
14:40:13 <billroberts> ...Is this an opportunity to start cooperating on developing a new ontology?
14:40:58 <billroberts> joshli: answer to that is 'yes'. Josh is working on one and would be happy to host drafts
14:41:21 <billroberts> frans: Coverage people had a discussion
14:41:29 <billroberts> bill: (actually that was teh SSN group)
14:41:58 <billroberts> joshli: SSN group talked about Webprotege as a tool
14:42:22 <Linda> ack robaq
14:42:33 <eparsons> ack roba
14:42:58 <billroberts> roba: I'm working on describing hierarchical relationships in data cube dimensions
14:43:58 <billroberts> ...linked data web is very heterogeneous.  Often relies on assumed rather than explicitly declared knowledge.  Many different terms used by different people.  There is a lot of misuse of vocabularies
14:44:03 <eparsons> q+
14:44:08 <Linda> ack eparsons
14:44:13 <billroberts> ...so there is a need for a best practice as there are too many different ways of doing it
14:44:18 <joshli> q+
14:45:04 <eparsons> ack next
14:45:10 <billroberts> eparsons: we should think more broadly than just geometries, but also think of relationships between features that rely on other aspects of them than geometry
14:45:23 <billroberts> joshli: I've been focusing on geometry so far as that seemed to be the pain point
14:45:32 <billroberts> ...but interesting to consider other things
14:45:51 <billroberts> ...How do we distinguish between spatial relationships and (non-spatial) feature relationships?
14:46:18 <billroberts> ...but this can get very complicated.
14:46:44 <billroberts> eparsons: perhaps we can at least note our aspiration to go in that direction, while noting the concern about complexity of that
14:47:09 <billroberts> ...it's natural to get het up about geometry, but many web developers take a more 'place-based' than 'space-based' view of the world
14:47:43 <billroberts> joshli: noted in his conversation with Matt, than many relationships are not space based, eg 'part of' relationships
14:48:33 <billroberts> ...useful to describe equivalence between different kinds of relation
14:48:47 <frans> q+
14:48:53 <Linda> ack next
14:48:58 <roba> q+
14:49:20 <Linda> oops, I was actually talking but muted...
14:49:58 <eparsons> q+
14:50:09 <billroberts> frans: audience could include, for example, people at say Google working on artificial intelligence, data mining, etc might benefit from spatial data on the web having common geometrical foundations to make it more processable
14:50:29 <billroberts> linda: asks Frans - is there anything in the use cases about this?
14:50:43 <billroberts> frans: yes, lots relating to defining and consuming geometry
14:50:59 <Linda> ack roba
14:51:26 <billroberts> roba: noting conversations in the SSN group, about how to modularize vocabularies
14:51:56 <billroberts> ...so can have a simple basic ontology then add in more sophisticated modules if you want to do reasoning
14:52:32 <AndreaPerego> About UCR & spatial ontology, there's also some about spatial relations - https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/#SpatialRelationships
14:52:55 <Linda> ack next
14:52:58 <billroberts> Linda: can we categorise our requirements into 'simple' and 'complex' ?
14:53:00 <joshli> q+
14:53:44 <billroberts> eparsons: in response to Frans on AI, data mining etc - the geometry is not always relevant to that. More important is relations between features.  The relation is 'London is in England'
14:54:13 <billroberts> ...second point is a more operational one.  How are we going to get this work done? Is it part of the BP, or is it a separate deliverable that needs to be managed and resourced
14:54:26 <billroberts> ...don't want to lose focus on the BP while working on the spatial ontology
14:54:47 <billroberts> Linda: yes that needs further discussion. In my mind it is a separate thing
14:54:48 <Linda> ack next
14:54:59 <billroberts> joshli: agrees that it should be separate to the BP deliverable.
14:55:13 <billroberts> joshli: it could be an OGC thing that could be cited in the best practice
14:55:37 <billroberts> ...but need to consider the process for that.  Perhaps a charter for a GeoSPARQL working group
14:56:15 <billroberts> ...should development of ontology be part of the SDW activity? Maybe SDW can set requirements and the drafting of it could be in OGC context perhaps
14:56:29 <eparsons> +1 to josh's plan reg from here - doc produced via OGC process
14:56:36 <billroberts> ...Also, useful to look at the SSN modularity approach as a pattern, but is that parallelisable
14:56:42 <eparsons> s/reg/req
14:57:22 <frans> q+
14:57:22 <Linda> +1 to josh's plan
14:57:29 <Linda> ack frans
14:57:48 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwbp-minutes.html eparsons
14:58:18 <AndreaPerego> +1 to RDFS for core, and more sophisticated formalisation for extensions.
14:58:19 <billroberts> frans: on modularity, GeoSPARQL is already modular in a functional sense. We would want a future version of GeoSPARQL to be compatible with the existing version, so would keep existing modularization pattern
14:58:44 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:54 <billroberts> ...a risk of the ontology development being in the OGC area might be a loss of input from W3C perspective
14:58:58 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:58:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwbp-minutes.html eparsons
14:59:19 <eparsons> +1
14:59:25 <AndreaPerego> +1
14:59:28 <Linda> +1
14:59:29 <MattPerry> +1
14:59:29 <billroberts> Linda: who would be interested on working on this ontology?
14:59:30 <ByronCinNZ_> +1
14:59:30 <joshli> +1
14:59:31 <frans> +1
14:59:44 <AndreaPerego> +1
14:59:45 <roba> +1
14:59:57 <eparsons> thanks billroberts Good Job !!
15:00:02 <billroberts> Linda: will take this discussion back to plenary group next week
15:00:13 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye.
15:00:15 <eparsons> thank Linda
15:00:17 <billroberts> Meeting closed
15:00:18 <frans> Thanks all, have a good day
15:00:18 <joshli> bye bye
15:00:21 <billroberts> bye
15:00:22 <MattPerry> bye
15:00:24 <Linda> bye
15:02:18 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwbp-minutes.html eparsons
15:13:00 <joshli> joshli has left #sdwbp
16:58:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdwbp